Human studies and user studies: A call for methodological inter-disciplinarity

Information Research

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2003, Pages

  Dervin, Brenda ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042675792     PISSN: 13681613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Albrechtsen, J. & Jacob, E.K. (1998). The dynamics of classification systems as boundary objects for cooperation in the electronic library. Library Trends, 47(2), 293-312.
2. Andersen, J. (2002). The role of subject literature in scholarly communication: an interpretation based on social epistemology. Journal of Documentation, 58(4), 463-481.
3. Arant, W. & Payne, L. (2001). The common user interface in academic libraries: myth or reality. Library Hi Tech, 19(1), 63-76.
4. Arnowitz, S. & Ausch, R. (2000). A critique of methodological reason. Sociological Quarterly, 41(4), 699-719.
5. Barthes, R. (1986). The rustle of language (R. Howard, tr.). New York: Hill and Wang.
6. Beck, U. (1995). Ecological enlightenment: essays on the politics of the risk society (Mark A. Ritter, tr.). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
7. Bourdieu, P. (1989). The logic of practice (R. Nice, tr.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
8. Brewer, G.D. (1999). The challenges of inter-disciplinarity. Policy Sciences, 32(4), 327-337.
9. Bruhn, J.G. (2000). inter-disciplinary research: a philosophy, art form, artifact, or antidote? Integrative Physiological and Behavioural Science, 35(1), 58-66.
10. Carter, R.F. (1974). Toward more unity in science. Unpublished manuscript.
11. Carter, R.F. (2003). Communication: a harder science. In B. Dervin, S.H. Chaffee & L. Foreman-Wernet (Eds.), Communicating, a different kind of horse race: essays honoring Richard F. Carter (pp. 369-376). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
12. Carter, R.F., Ruggels, W.L. & Simpson, R. (1974). Minding society. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism annual meeting, San Diego, CA.
13. Dervin, B. (1991). Comparative theory reconceptualized: from entities and states of processes and dynamics. Communication Theory, 1(1), 59-69.
14. Dervin, B. (1993). Verbing communication: mandate for disciplinary invention. Journal of Communication, 43(3), 45-54.
15. Dervin, B. (1994). Information-democracy: an examination of underlying assumptions. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 45(6), 369-385.
16. Dervin, B. (1997). Given a context by any other name: methodological tools for taming the unruly beast. In P. Vakkari, R. Savolainen & B. Dervin (Eds.), Information seeking in context (pp. 13-38). London: Taylor Graham.
17. Dervin, B. (1999a). On studying information seeking methodologically: the implications of connecting metatheory to method. Information Processing and Management, 35(6), 727-750.
18. Dervin, B. (1999b). Chaos, order, and Sense-Making: a proposed theory for information design. In R. Jacobson (Ed.), Information design (pp. 35-57). Cambridge: MIT Press.
19. Dervin, B. (2003). Sense-Making's journey from metatheory to methodology to method: an example using information seeking and use as research focus. In B. Dervin & L. Foreman-Wernet (with E. Lauterbach) (Eds.), Sense-Making methodology reader: selected writings of Brenda Dervin (pp. 133-164). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
20. Dervin, B. & Chaffee, S.H. (2003). How Carter helps: aphorisms as traces. In B. Dervin, S.H. Chaffee & L. Foreman-Wernet (Eds.), Communicating, a different kind of horse race: essays honoring Richard F. Carter (pp. 359-368). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
21. Dervin, B. & Foreman-Wernet, L. (with Lauterbach, E.). (2003). Sense-Making Methodology reader: selected writings of Brenda Dervin. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
22. Dervin, B. & Frenette, M. (2001). Sense-Making Methodology: communicating communicatively with campaign audiences. In R. Rice & C.A. Atkin (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (3rd ed., pp. 69-87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. Fisher, D. (1990). Boundary work and science: the relation between power and knowledge. In S.E. Cozzens & T.F. Gieryn (Eds.), Theories of science in society (pp. 98-119). Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.
24. Hjørland, B. (1996). Overload, quality and changing conceptual frameworks. In J. Olaisen, E. Munch-Petersen & P. Wilson (Eds.), Information science: from the development of the discipline to social interaction (pp. 35-68). Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press.
25. Hjørland, B. (1998). Theory and metatheory of information science: a new perceptive. Journal of Documentation, 54(5), 606-621.
26. Hjørland, B. (2000a). Library and information science: practice, theory, and philosophical basis. Information Processing & Management, 36, 501-531.
27. Hjørland, B. (2000b). Information seeking behaviour: what should a general theory look like? New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 1, 19-33.
28. Jones, R. (2000). The library of the future and the world network. Paper presented at the Computers in Libraries 2000 Conference, Washington, DC.
29. Karlqvist, A. (1999). Going beyond disciplines: the meanings of inter-disciplinarity. Policy Sciences, 32(4), 379-383.
30. Klein, J.T. (1990). Crossing boundaries, knowledge, disciplinarities, and inter-disciplinarities. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
31. Loftus, G.R. (1991). On the tyranny of hypothesis testing in the social sciences. Contemporary Psychology, 36(2), 102-105.
32. Lombardi, J. (2000). 20/20 Vision for the future. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Library Association, University Libraries Section and the College Libraries Section of ACRL, Chicago.
33. Longino, H.E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: values and objectivity in science inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34. McLuskie, E. (2001). The continuing relevance of epistemological pursuits in a culture of practicality: (re) Introducing MacLean's Critique of Communication Studies. In L. Manca & G.W. Pieper (Eds.), A heretic in American journalism education and research: Malcolm J. MacLean, Jr. revisited (pp. 143-156). Columbia: University of Missouri-Columbia, Stephenson Research Center
35. Morton, A. (2000). Saving epistemology from the epistemologists: recent work in the theory of knowledge. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 51(4), 685-704.
36. Mourad Jr., R.P. (1997). Postmodern inter-disciplinarity. Review of Higher Education, 20(2), 113-140.
37. Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
38. Nardi, B.A. & O'Day, V.L. (1999). Information ecologies: using technology with heart. Cambridge: MIT Press.
39. Olaisen, J. (1996a). Information, cognitive authority and organizational learning. In J. Olaisen, E. Munch-Petersen & P. Wilson (Eds.), Information science: from the development of the discipline to social interaction (pp. 7-20). Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press.
40. Olaisen, J. (1996b). Plural or positivistic trivialism: criteria for a clarified subjectivisim. In J. Olaisen, E. Munch-Petersen & P. Wilson (Eds.), Information science: from the development of the discipline to social interaction (pp. 277-318). Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press.
41. Palmer, C.L. (1996). Information work at the boundaries of science: linking library services to research practices. Library Trends, 45(2), 165-191.
42. Palmer, C.L. (1999). Structures and strategies of inter-disciplinary science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(3), 242-253.
43. Pinch, T. (1990). The culture of scientists and disciplinary rhetoric. European Journal of Education, 25(3), 295-304.
44. Richards, W.D. (2002). The Zen of empirical research (Quantitative methods in communication). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
45. Romm, N.R.A. (1998). inter-disciplinary practice as reflexivity. Systematic Practice and Action Research, 11(1), 63-77.
46. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
47. Savoleinen, R. (1993). The Sense-Making theory: reviewing the interests of a user-centered approach to information seeking and use. Information Processing and Management, 29(1), 13-28.
48. Schleifer, R. (1997). Disciplinarity and collaboration in the sciences and humanities. College English, 59(4), 438-452.
49. Star, S.L. (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In L. Glasser & M.H. Huhns (Eds.), Distributed artificial intelligence (pp. 37-54). London: Pitman.
50. Star, S.L. & Griesemer, J.R. (1989). Institutional ecology, "Translations" and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-1939. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420.
51. Sullivan, D.L. (1996). Displaying disciplinarity. Written Communication, 13(2), 221-250.
52. Theng, Y.L., Duncker, E., Mohd-Nasir, N., Buchanan, G. & Thimbleby, H. (1999). Design guidelines and user-centered digital libraries. In S. Abiteboul & A.-M. Vercoustre (Eds.), Research and advanced technology for digital libraries: third European Conference, ECDL '99, Paris, France, September 22-24, 1999 Proceedings (pp. 167-183). Heidelberg: Springer.
53. Vakkari, P. (1996). Library and information science: content and scope. In J. Olaisen, M. Munch-Petersen & P. Wilson (Eds.), Information science: from the development of the discipline to social interaction (pp. 169-232). Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press.
54. Vakkari, P. (1997). Information seeking in context: a challenging metatheory. In P. Vakkari, R. Savolainen & B. Dervin (Eds.), Information Seeking in Context: proceedings of an International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts 14-16 August, 1996, Tampere, Finland (pp. 451-465). London and New York: Taylor Graham.
55. Vakkari, P., Savolainen, R. & Dervin, B. (1997). Information Seeking in Context: proceedings of an International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts 14-16 August 1996, Tampere, Finland. London and New York: Taylor Graham.
56. Wilson, P. (1993). The value of currency. Library Trends, 41(4), 632-643.
57. Wilson, P. (1996a). inter-disciplinary research and information overload. Library Trends, 45(2), 192-203.
58. Wilson, P. (1996b). Some consequences of information overload and rapid conceptual change. In J. Olaisen, M. Munch-Petersen & P. Wilson (Eds.), Information science: from the development of the discipline to social interaction (pp. 21-34). Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press.
59. Wilson, P. (1996c). The future of research in our field. In J. Olaisen, M. Munch-Petersen & P. Wilson (Eds.), Information science: from the development of the discipline to social interaction (pp. 319-324). Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press.
60. Wilson, T.D. & Allen, D.K. (Eds.). (1999). Exploring the context of information behaviour. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, Sheffield, 1998. London: Taylor Graham.
61. Zuo, Y. (1997). On inter-disciplinarity. Discourse & Society, 8(3), 439-441.